Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1887-08-04

know that the court committee investigated the
Auditor and found his accounts all correct and
straight, or at least made no report TO the con-
trary.
Our proposition NAV have been absurd
enough, but The CHROSIcLE readers are nov
aware OF the fact that LOngley's investigation
of Auditor Barrett is contrary to the report OF
the sworn committee. A. II. Mitchell and
George Duncan, of the committee, knew their
duty, and the matter simply stands on their
oath, or j. B. Longley's word--Gazette.
No; nor it do q require very smart
reader to see that you are very dishon-
est man.
July IA. in answer to the declaration
of TIE CHRoNICE that the late investi>
eating committee had negIectei or refus.
ed to consider matters rejecting serious
| ly upon the late Democratic Auditor, the
Gazette said:
1t has long been known that some of the
smart Aiecks, the editor of TIE CHRONICLE
probably among the number, wanted this CON-
mittee to report on other county officials
1t would have been as appropriate for this com
mittee to have investigated Gov. Foraker's pen
itentiary skin cane charges, or to have reported
to the court their opinion of a newspaper which
attacks dead men, or given an opinion as tC
where Charley Ross might be found.
Longlev, for The CHRONICLE, has assumed
the pressure Of making such a report since this
committee very properly refused to meddle with
matters they had no business with, even if " its
attention " was called to it.
Now, it would have its readers believe
"that the court committee investigated
the Auditor and found his accounts all
correct and straight" 1t did no such
thing; but apparently proceeded upon
the theory that 1t had no power to exam
inc into anything except matters relating
to the compensation of the Commission
ers.
1t is true some gentlemen, when the
Investigating committee commenced
work, supposed it would investigate all
the transactions contained in the report,
embracing expenditures sggregating
nearly Four Hundred Thousand Dollars.
The attention of the committee was
called to few matters. but the mass of
matter contained in the twelve specii
cations printed below was developed
after the committee had made its report.
All were proper subjects of inquiry at
the hands of the committee. but all were
left for newspaper investigation. That
the Auditor had given the publisher of
the Gazette an order on the treasury for
$50, for assessors blanks that cost the
publisher about S45, was called to the
committees attention, and mild re-
monstrance against that proceeding was
injected into its report. A great noise
was made because it was discovered
that one of the Commissioners had made
mistake of s. 20 in his mileage ac-
counts. but nothing was said of Auditor
Barrett charging for 240 miles TO Woods
field Tidden on free passes) because the
committee made no investigation of his
affairs, and knew nothing about them.
OF course it should have been done.
The law contemplates that all expendi-
lures from the county treasury shall be
Investigated, and if anything irregular
or unlawful is discovered that public
attention shall be called to it, and pros
vides that the court shall direct the
Prosecuting attorney to take steps to
recover money unlawfuliy paid oat.
The Investigations carried on by TAG
CHRONICLE have developed a number of
very juicy things about exAuditor Bar
rett's administration of his Office. They
have been laid before our readers from
time to time. No attempt has been
made to disproVe them. They can not
be successfully assailed.
The so-called investigations by court
committees, as rule, are a farce ana d
humbug. In 1870 a similar committee,
composed of able-lawyers, reported that
a careful inspection had been made of
the books and vouchers of the Auditors
office, and that everything was correct
and straight" as the Gazette would put
it; and yet at the very hour in which
that report was drawn up and signed
there was defslcation of nearly SIS, 900, |
aud the accounts aud records of the
Auditors Office were in deplorable con-
dition. The committee missed all that,
and, so far as the last committee is cOn>
cerned. there might have been deficit
of $4,000 again, and it would have been
none the wiser, simply because it did not
investigate.
We again direct attention to specific |
charges of maladministration and NAL
feasance by Democratic county officers, |
and challenge any one to meet and an
swer them. Here they are. and they are
no trifiing $3.50 matters. but are things
that have cost the honest people of this
county many thousands of dollars:
1. That, although the county has been one
of the most prosperous in the state-although
its tax duplicate within specified time has in
creased nearly $4,000, ,O0O-although its popu-
lation has increased I5,00O-although upward
of twenty incorporated companies Gncluding |
two national banks and large iron works.
have been organized within the time named
the personal tar list has actually decreased d
and Democratic County Auditors are mainly
responsible for it.
II. That Democratic Auditors have been so
careless of their obligations and duties that
county expenses have been greatly increased. |
III. That Democratic Auditors have time
and again drawn warrants upon the treasury
without authority of law.
". That the late Democratic Auditor over
drew his salary.
V. That the st. Clairsville Gazette has
profted from the recklessness and extrava-
gance that have prevailed in the Auditors